Monday, August 26, 2013

The farce

For those who seek an independent Black politics that is faithful to
the historical Black consensus for peace and social justice, the
inclusion of President Barack Obama in the 50th anniversary of the 1963
March on Washington is a desecration. The ancestral sanctum is to be
utterly defiled by the presence of the very personification of imperial
savagery and a ballooning domestic police state.Of course, the organizers of this monumental self-debasement – this
obscene groveling at the feet of Power – see Obama’s participation as
the ultimate testimony to Black progress. Proximity to Power has always
been their Dream. Dr. Martin Luther King serves as a mere prop
in the ceremony, which seeks to draw a straight line from the 1863
Emancipation Proclamation, through the 1963 mass march, to the First
Black President’s embrace of the 2013 commemoration – a kind of holy
trinity.For the Black Misleadership Class, the great social movement in which
Dr. King played such a pivotal role was brought forth, not to confront
Power, but to integrate it. President Obama is the perfect blending –
the literal embodiment of Black Power, in the warped worldview of the
2013 organizers. Dr. King has no place in this abomination, except to
mark the tolling of the bell on his dream to overcome the three evils
inherent in imperial capitalism: racism, militarism and materialism.It is a funereal occasion.

On Saturday, tens of thousands of workers and young people marched to
the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the March on Washington, led by Martin Luther King, Jr.
in 1963.The presence of working people expressed the powerful hold on popular
consciousness of the ideals of democracy and equality that animated the
mass movement for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s and are
associated with the event that culminated in King’s famous “I have a
dream” speech.However, the politics that dominated Saturday’s march, promoted by
the organizers and the collection of Democratic politicians, official
“civil rights” leaders and union bureaucrats who spoke from the podium,
were the antithesis of those ideals. The organizers sought to exploit
the anniversary by staging an event backed by the White House whose aim
was to channel growing political and social opposition behind a
government that is carrying out an unprecedented assault on democratic
rights and a further growth of social inequality.

So explain to me why Amy Goodman broadcast the farce today and treated it as real and worthwhile?

Monday, August 26, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraqi
government advises people to check cars for bombs before driving them, a
US official condemns the use of chemical weapons . . . apparently
forgetting the US used them in Falluja, Michael Ratner discusses the
military verdict against Chelsea Manning, War Hawks flutter their wings
as they lust for war on Syria, and more.

Michael Ratner: You know, some people are saying the sentence wasn't
so long because he was facing 136 years and then he was facing 90 but
that's outrageous. 35 years is a completely off the wall sentence.
First of all, he shouldn't have been prosecuted at all. That's been the
Center for Constitutional Rights position. It's my position. He's a
whistle-blower. He exposed torture, criminality, killing of civilians.
He should not have been prosecuted. At all. And then what happens is
they over prosecute him to the extent that they did. They make
whistle-blowers into spies. They charge him with all these years. And
then people are relieved when he gets 35 years? Let me tell you, that's
no relief. He's 25-years-old. Assuming he were to get the best credit
he could, he's going to do at least a minimum of 20 more years -- a
very long sentence for someone who actually gave us the truth about
Iraq, about Iran, about the helicopter video that killed the Reuters'
journalists, about the diplomatic cables that gave us the secret war in
Yemen, the revelations about the [Zine El Abidine] Ben Ali corrupt
government in Tunisia that helped bring on the Arab Spring. He's a
hero. The people who committed the crimes, sadly, are still in our
government, enjoying their lives. They're the ones that ought to be
prosecuted. And I don't want it heard that he -- Bradley Manning --
should have been prosecuted at all but particularly, of course, while
these criminals are out there with complete immunity.Michael Smith: How is the trial set up to get this result?Michael Ratner: Well they first overcharged him with six espionage
counts plus aiding the enemy count. It was a judge trial, it was a
military trial so it was under the military jurisdiction. It was at
Fort Meade, very close to the National Security Agency, so you can
imagine how they feel about someone who is spilling their dirty secrets
and their criminality -- they don't think highly. It's a very severe
sentence. You know the Center has actually has in the past -- Bill Kunstler
has as well with us -- represented people who actually sold their
secrets to either the Soviet Union or others and those people didn't
receive as severe a sentence. But we're really in a time in which you
can say there's a sledge hammer being taken against whistle-blowers and
it's just -- I find it unbelievable, to me, that someone who's
information we need so badly and an utterly secret government is being
is being sentenced -- or has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.Michael Smith: What role did Obama play in this and what demands can we make to get him [Manning] out?Michael Ratner: Well Obama's the commander in chief so ultimately he
controls it. Obama's role was not good. He actually influenced the
trial, in my view. But I think they probably would have convicted him
in any case. But he's the one who said basically he's guilty -- that's
command influence. He shouldn't have been tried after that. The demand
now is that Obama pardon him and give him clemency -- pardon or give
him clemency. That's the demand of the Bradley Manning Support
Committee and it should be all of our demand. Michael Smith: Daniel Ellsberg had his case dismissed. And that was
a time when there was a massive anti-war movement in the streets.
Would you say that because we lack that now, they were able to bludgeon
Manning? Michael Ratner: You know, I think that there's a growing movement,
particularly after Snowden, but there's no question that having a huge
movement like we had during the Ellsberg case is what got, ultimately,
Ellsberg out of that espionage charge. There's a growing movement in
this country as more and more comes out. Let's just remember what a
leader Bradley Manning is. Because of Bradley Manning, I think that
people like Ed Snowden came forward. They understand that when they see
criminality, they're young people of conscience and they act on it.
And we should be very proud of each of these people. Michael Smith: Michael, you've got to run, you're at Fort Meade,
everyone wants to hear from you. You got any last thoughts before you
take off?Michael Ratner: My last thoughts are, we're in one of the nastiest
administrations on record. It's going after the truth tellers. We have
to support Bradley Manning, we have to support Ed Snowden, Julian
Assange, Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown and the others out there. And
this is only part of their criminality [the government's criminality].
Exposing their criminality is what this is about and they don't want
that.

I have slammed David Coombs (and stand by that slam) for refusing to
give interviews when Chelsea was known as Bradley. I stand by that
criticism. That's when coverage was needed -- before a verdict. I made
a comment last week that if Heidi Boghosian had been Chelsea's attorney
she would have done that. An angry e-mail insists I have no way of
knowing that. Yes, I do. First, Heidi knows the law and knows how to
represent clients. Second, she's demonstrated this repeatedly. You
only have to look to work on Mumia's case to see that. Mumia Abu Jamal
does weekly commentaries and has maintained his journalism even while in
prison. But that didn't mean Heidi said, "Oh, he's got his weekly
commentaries on the radio, that's enough." Every time she's visited or
she's received an update, she has amplified it on Law and Disorder and
to any press she could. You can also look to Michael Ratner. Why was
he at the military proceeding against Chelsea Manning?

Because he represents Julian Assange. And he will go on any program to
defend his client. He will speak to any press outlet to defend his
client. That's what smart attorneys do. The Michaels talk about a
larger movement being needed for Chelsea Manning. Such a movement is
not built when the client is unable to speak to the press (the
government had locked Chelsea Manning away for three years) and the
attorney is unwilling to.

On the US government's illegal spying, Nell Abrams (Free Speech Radio News) explained today, "The German weekly Der Spiegel has released more details of US spying
activities gleaned from documents made public by former intelligence
contractor Edward Snowden. The classified information reveals that the
National Security Agency, or NSA, bugged European Union embassies in New
York and Washington, D.C. and hacked into their computer systems.
Breaking at least three international agreements that ban spying at the
United Nations, the NSA also broke into the UN’s internal video
meeting network and stationed undercover agent there cloaked as
diplomats. And operatives are also disguised as diplomats in 80
embassies and consulates worldwide. Contrary to recent remarks by
President Obama that U.S. spying is solely intended to combat terrorism,
Der Speigel reports that intelligence agents are targeting information
related to economic stability, trade policy, energy security and food
products."

There are so many revelations on the illegal spying that it can be
difficult to keep track. We heard that Friday when we were speaking to a
group. Today, I passed around Bill Quigley's "13 Things the Government is Trying to Keep Secret From You" (CounterPunch)
to a group and this helped put it all perspective. Use the link for
Quigley's article but we're grabbing his 13 points for the snapshot (in
the article, he explains each one, so use the links):

One. The Government seizes and searches all internet and text communications which enter or leave the USTwo. The Government created and maintains secret
backdoor access into all databases in order to search for information on
US citizensThree. The Government operates a vast database
which allows it to sift through millions of records on the internet to
show nearly everything a person doesFour. The Government has a special court which meets in secret
to authorize access for the FBI and other investigators to millions and
millions of US phone, text, email and business recordsFive. The Government keeps Top Secret nearly all the decisions of the FISA court

Six. The Government is fighting to keep Top Secret a key 2011
decision of the FISA court even after the court itself said it can be
made public

Seven. The Government uses secret National Security Letters (NSL) issued by the FBI to seize tens of thousands of recordsEight. The National Security Head was caught not telling the
truth to Congress about the surveillance of millions of US citizens

Nine. The Government falsely assured the US public in writing
that privacy protections are significantly stronger than they actually
are and Senators who knew better were not allowed to disclose the truthTen. The chief defender of spying in the House of
Representatives, the Chair of the oversight intelligence subcommittee,
did not tell the truth or maybe worse did not know the truth about
surveillance

Eleven. The House intelligence oversight committee
repeatedly refused to provide basic surveillance information to elected
members of the House of Representatives, Republican and DemocratTwelve. The paranoia about secrecy of surveillance
is so bad in the House of Representatives that an elected member of
Congress was threatened for passing around copies of the Snowden
disclosures which had been already printed in newspapers worldwide

Thirteen. The Senate oversight committee refused to allow a
dissenting Senator to publicly discuss his objections to surveillance

Today on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR -- link is audio and text), guest host Frank Sesno moderated a discussion
on Syria with Susan Glasser (POLITICO), Joshua Landis (Center for
Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma) and David Schenker
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) which was much stronger
than the crap offered the previous Friday. As Ava and I noted in "Media: Pimping War,"
Friday's second hour of the program, guest hosted by the hideous Tom
Gjelten, kicked off with 15 minutes of basically calling US President
Barack Obama a p**sy for not bombing Syria. Warren Strobel and Barbara
Slavin were outright itching for war and ridiculing him. We have on
problem with the ridicule of any government official, but as Ava and I
pointed out:NPR refuses to question the credibility of the administration with
regards to spying on the American people, despite one revelation after
another, despite one lie after another. But the network explains that
if Barack "doesn't react in some more forceful way" with Syria, he will
lose credibility.
Those are the priorities when media whores gather.

Friday, while NPR pimped war, Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) pointed out, "Officials continue hyping Wednesday’s allegations of a chemical weapons strike, saying that they believe such an attack probably happened even though they don’t have any actual proof to back that up." The doubts continue today. No proof has yet emerged of anything.

The Diane Rehm Show features
a photo of an apparently able-bodied man, able to hold a sign aloft,
one that declares, "Dear Free World Enjoy Watching Us Burn." If you're
so bothered, Mr. Coward, get your chicken ass out of Lebanon (where the
photo was taken) and fight for your damn country. In other word, Baby
Chicken S**t, stop expecting someone else to fight battles your too damn
scared to fight. (And probably not a good idea to echo Rhianna's
tag in a song on your poster when the song she sings "just gonna stand
there and watch me burn" is entitled "Love The Way You Lie." Just
saying.)

Conn Hallinan: The problem is that you can't talk about the
[President Bashar al-] Assad government and the insurgency. There are, I
don't know, five or six different variations of the insurgency. Even
the Gulf Cooperation Council -- which is the group of monarchies that
support the insurgency -- they don't see eye to eye. Saudi Arabia has
locked horns with Qatar because Saudi Arabia is extremely anti-Muslim
Brotherhood and Qatar is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. So the
two of them are locked in a competition over the insurgency not only in
Syria but also in the recent coup in Egypt. So we don't know who all
the actors are here. I mean when someone says, 'Would we do this to
ourselves?,' there isn't any 'we' in Syria, there isn't any unified 'we'
in Syria to this.Glenn Reeder: You're talking about the opposition.Conn Hallinan: Absolutely. Anyone could have done this. And again
this is not to say that I entirely rule out that the Assad government
didn't do this or that someone in the military didn't do this. It's
just that, when you line up all of the ducks, they're not in a row and I
think at this point you have to fall back on sort of old school
journalism: You know, if your mother tells you that she loves you, you
need three unimpeachable sources to be sure about that. And I think
that this is one of those cases. The Syrian government has agreed to
the investigation so let's see where the investigation goes at this
point.Glenn Reeder: Okay, if it turns out that hundreds of civilians were
gassed, does it matter who did it? In terms of whether the US -- or the
West -- but we're -- let's just stick to the US -- should become
involved? I mean, despite what are now rivers of innocent blood
flowing, should outsiders stand aside and let the country fight it out
the way the US did in the deadliest war in United States history, the
Civil War?Conn Hallinan: Yeah, exactly. I mean, here's the problem. Let's
say the United States and France and Britain get involved and probably
involve Turkey to a certain extent too -- what does it mean? On the
simplest level it could mean that the United States would attempt to
eliminate the Syrian air force which they could do fairly easily. And
they wouldn't even have to use airplanes to do it, they could do it with
Tomahawks, they could do it with stand off missiels they could pretty
much take out the Syrian air force. Okay, so what? You still have this
stalemate going on. So you say, 'Well okay, we're going to invade and
we're going to overthrow the Assad government.' Okay. So you overthrow
the Assad government and that would be more difficult to do but it's
possible you could certainly do it. And then what? And then you get in
a fight with the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and
Levant -- what do you do with the Kurds? I mean, this makes Afghanistan
look like a cakewalk. This is one of the most important Arab countries
in the Middle East and the United States or its allies are going to
intervene in its civil war? This is going to be -- it's going to be
just a disaster. And I can't -- I can't -- When I start thinking about
all the dominoes that are going to come down from this one, it's very
sobering. The United States doesn't particularly want to do this. And
if you recall there was this report last week from the Joint-Chiefs of
Staff of where they said basically we don't -- as far as the war goes --
we couldn't make a difference but if we won it for the other side,
those people wouldn't be our allies. And they wouldn't.

To the specific point in your letter, there are certainly actions
short of tipping the balance of the conflict that could impose a cost on
them [Syrian government] for unacceptable behavior. We can destroy the
Syrian Air Force. The loss of Assad's Air Force would negate his
ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also
escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the
conflict. In a variety of ways, the use of U.S. military force can
change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying and
historic, ethnic, religious, and tribal issues that are fueling this
conflict.Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about
choosing one among many sides. It is my belief that thr side we choose
must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance
shifts in their favor. Today, they are not. The crisis in Syria is
tragic and complex. It is a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among
multiple factions, and violent struggles for power will continue after
Assad's rule ends. We should evaluate the effectiveness of limited
military options in this context.

That's from a private letter to US House Rep Eliot Engel which Engel
then leaked to the Associated Press (Dempsey knows Engel leaked it) as
part of Engel's decade long war against Syria. It's not just that he
teamed with Bully Boy Bush on this, it's also that Engel is seen as
representing the interests of the Israeli government in the US Congress
and not the interests of the people who voted him into Congress. Those
ties to the Israeli government do not help his cause on the
international stage.

On Syria, I was asked by a friend with The Nation if I would weigh in on something. Bob Dreyfuss has a piece calling for calm in the face of cries for war on Syria:

Now, however, with the usual suspects on the right calling for blood,
expect the White House to come under heavy pressure from liberal
imperialists and others -- including Secretary of State Kerry, UN
Ambassador Samantha Power, and National Security Adviser Susan Rice -- to
take aggressive action.

If I have the right article, I was told Valerie Jarrett's name was in
the list, this is what I'm weighing in on. Dreyfuss got called out for a
piece a little while back which included Jarrett, Power, Hillary
Clinton and maybe Rice. I didn't weigh in because I hadn't read it and
didn't hear of it until after there was a mini-tsunami. If someone
feels Dreyfuss or anyone is writing something sexist, they should
absolutely call it out. I'm not a Dreyfuss fan, that's been noted here
before. I have no desire to rescue him from criticism.

But if Dreyfuss is covering the administration (and he is) and women in
the administration are pushing for something (and they and John Kerry
are), his noting women pushing for something or his calling them out for
pushing for something is not sexism. Women can be called out for their
actions. This can be done kindly or rudely. As can happen when
calling out men. Tone doesn't matter and he can mock them and that's
not sexism. It only is sexist if he's mocking them using sexist
stereotypes. Calling out women, in and of itself, for promoting war is
not sexism. Apparently when the piece was published (I think Friday or
Saturday -- I'm going by the phone call details), a small round of "He's
being sexist!" started up. As the piece was explained to me, Jarrett's
name was in it (Kerry's wasn't). But Bob Dreyfuss calling out Jarret,
Rice and Power is not sexism. His mocking them is not sexism. And
let's refrain, please, from stupid notion that 'we haven't had three
powerful women before so we shouldn't criticize!' That's as stupid as
refraining from criticizing Barack due to his skin tone.

In echoes of the rush to war on Iraq, US government officials insist
Syria has gassed their own. (There's no proof of that and with UN
inspectors fired on today -- it would seem more likely that rebels
either were behind a gassing or didn't want the alleged incident
investigated.) Saddam Hussein, we were told by Bully Boy Bush and
others, gassed his own. This was shocking! This was chemical warfare!
The US government was outraged that chemical warfare would be used on a
people!!!! Clearly, such outrage meant, the US would never tolerate or
aid in chemical weapons being used on a people!

Newly declassified CIA
documents show that the United States had a hand in Iraq’s deadly
chemical attacks on Iran during the 1980-1988 war against the Islamic
Republic, a new report says.

During the war, the Iraqi military attacked Iran several times using
mustard gas and sarin with the help of satellite imagery, maps and
other intelligence provided by the US government, the Foreign Policy
magazine said, citing CIA documents and interviews with former US
intelligence officials.
US officials have long denied having knowledge of the US involvement
but retired Air Force Colonel Rick Francona, a then military attaché in
Baghdad, said the American officials knew of Iraq’s intention.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They
didn't have to. We already knew," Francona told Foreign Policy.

The US government may be considering military action in response to
chemical strikes near Damascus, while there is no clue to throw the
responsibility for the attack on anyone's shoulder, except for the
common sense which says rebels should be blamed. But a generation ago,
America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did
nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than
anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy said in a report.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United
States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a
major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. US
intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to
Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical
weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop
movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and
details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and
sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on US
satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to
tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table,
and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy
of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last
in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the
Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

Remember the above when US officials pretend to be alarmed by chemical warfare. Also remember the Guardian report by George Monbiot from November 2005:Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces
used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for
illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions
at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on
Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the
information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells,
which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for
screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to...
Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the
insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that
US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so
that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US
government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was
used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.The invaders have been
forced into a similar climbdown over the use of napalm in Iraq. In
December 2004, the Labour MP Alice Mahon asked the British armed forces
minister Adam Ingram "whether napalm or a similar substance has been
used by the coalition in Iraq (a) during and (b) since the war". "No
napalm," the minister replied, "has been used by coalition forces in
Iraq either during the war-fighting phase or since."This seemed
odd to those who had been paying attention. There were widespread
reports that in March 2003 US marines had dropped incendiary bombs
around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to
Baghdad. The commander of Marine Air Group 11 admitted that "We napalmed
both those approaches". Embedded journalists reported that napalm was
dropped at Safwan Hill on the border with Kuwait. In August 2003 the
Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77 firebombs".
Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function, the
Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar". While
napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is
made from kerosene and polystyrene. I doubt it makes much difference to
the people it lands on.

Observers say they are on the cusp of getting the hard evidence
needed to prove Iraqis are suffering from a disproportionate rate of
birth defects and cancers, likely due to massive pollution caused by the
war.So what’s the problem? Or should we say, WHO is the problem?As in the World Health Organization.WHO is the public health
arm of the United Nations and is tasked with "providing leadership on
global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms
and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing
technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health
trends." Currently, WHO is "providing technical assistance" to the Iraq
Ministry of Health (MOH) in a much anticipated study of congenital health defects
in 18 Iraqi districts, including Fallujah and Basra – places that
have reported high rates of babies born with horrifying maladies since
the war began. Basra, consequently, has reported higher incidents of
cancer, too, since the first Persian Gulf War. See some of Antiwar’s previous coverage here.The problem is, the results of the study, which began in May 2012,
were expected in early 2013. Both medical and human rights advocates are
wondering why they have been delayed – as of today, indefinitely. They
want answers now.

Iraqis know the answers. Everyone pretty much does around the world.
But WHO pronouncing the obvious will give weight to the reality that the
US government used chemical weapons on the Iraqi people. In June, Alsumaria reported that congenital malformations and rates of cancer are extremely
high as a result of the uranium munitions the US military used. It's no
longer unusual for a child to be born with two heads or with just one
eye, the report explains, and the health statistics are much worse than
in Japan in the aftermath of the US using the atomic bombs. In Falluja,
children born with deformities account for 14.7% of all births. The
report notes that although Iraq has a population estimated at 31
million, there are only 20,000 medical doctors and just over 100
psychotherapists in the country.

Again, the answers are known. But the medical studies thus far are
dismissed and largely ignored in a manner that a finding from the World
Health Organization can't be. It's exactly because such a report
carries so much weight that Barack's administration has done everything
it can to prevent the release of the report. Doug Weir (New Left Project) observed earlier this month:

Paediatrician Dr Samira Al’aani
has worked in the city since 1997. In 2006 she began to notice an
increase in the number of babies being born with congenital birth
defects (CBD). Concerned, she began to log the cases that she saw.
Through careful record keeping she has determined that at Fallujah
General Hospital, 144 babies are now born with a deformity for every
1000 live births. This is nearly six times higher than the average rate
in the UK between 2006 and 2010, and one strong suspicion is that
contamination from the toxic constituents of munitions used by occupying
forces could be the cause. Now a new nationwide study by the Iraqi
Ministry of Health, in collaboration with the World Health Organisation,
has the potential to catalyse efforts to understand and confront the
issue, but only if science can be allowed to rise above politics.

On the same day, a universe away, in Falluja, Iraq - poisoned by
weapons armed with uranium, chemically and radiologically toxic, and
white phosphorous, a chemical weapon, and other so far unidentified
"exotic weapons" - baby Humam was born. In a city relentlessly bombarded
in 1991 and again in two further criminal, inhuman US decimations in
2004.Humam was born with Retrognathia, a congenital heart disease ,
Omphalocele and Polydactly of upper and lower limbs. Omphalocele is an
abnormality that develops as the the foetus is forming. Some of the
abdominal organs protrude through an opening in the abdominal muscles in
the area of the umbilical cord. Polydactly is the manifestation of
extra digits on the hands or feet, in Humam's case, both.

Every day children are born in areas of Iraq with birth defects that are
a direct result of the illegal war, covering up a report, hiding it,
delaying it, will not change that fact. Earlier this month, Dr. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani (Al Jazeera) observed, "As scientists and public health professionals, we must respond in a
timely fashion to global health emergencies and seek their causes.
Delays and excuses cost lives that could have been saved."

If US officials are today outraged by the possibility that someone may
have used chemical weapons in Syria, they should make sure that's not
situational outrage -- meaning, they need to condemn the use of chemical
weapons, by the US, in Iraq. If they can't do that, they're just
hypocrites.

What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world.
It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate
slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent
bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard it
is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some
have manufactured, it is undeniable.

I like John Kerry but he needs to learn to shut his mouth and stop
trying to lead the administration. He wants war on Syria, I don't.
That's not the issue. The issue is the State Dept is over US efforts in
Iraq currently. That's where Kerry's in charge. With that reality in
mind, let's look at that statement one more time:

What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world.
It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate
slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent
bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard it
is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some
have manufactured, it is undeniable.

If those words really mean anything, Iraqis have every right to expect
Kerry to speak out for them, especially when the WHO report is finally
issued. You never, as Secretary of State, paint yourself into a
corner. The Secretary now has painted himself into a corner and, in
doing so, painted his Dept and the administration into one. The State
Dept is supposed to practice diplomacy which is another reason John
Kerry should be a lot less quick on the draw and a little more concerned
with dialogue.

Violence in Iraq yesterday was so bad that it even made it onto American TV via Sunday's NBC Nightly News:

Guest Anchor Carl Quintanilla: Still in the region, it was a very
violent Sunday in Iraq where a wave of attacks claimed dozens of lives.
Many of the victims were people going about their normal affairs at a
coffee shop, a wedding party and a security checkpoint. The attacks are
part of a months long wave of killings that is the country's worst fate
of bloodshed since 2008, more signs that insurgents are pushing Iraq
back to the brink of civil war.

Citing security sources, KUNA noted, 52 Iraqis were killed, among them five soldiers, and 119 injured in central Iraq on Sunday." Press TV speaks with Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation's Sabah Jawad (link is video) who stated,
"There are two reasons underlying this surge in the terrorist
activities in Iraq. Firstly, that there is the deep political divisions
taking place in Iraq between the political parties including the
government. That doesn't help at all in fighting terrorism. And the
creations -- There are many institutions in Iraq that were created by
the Americans therefore they're heavily infiltrated by the al Quds
forces which support -- one way or another -- the terrorists'
activities." AFP adds, "Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki has vowed to continue with an
anti-insurgent campaign, which is one of the biggest since US forces
withdrew from Iraq in December 2011, but analysts and diplomats say
authorities have repeatedly failed to address the root causes of the
violence." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) shares, "The bloodshed appears to mark a new round of violence to hit Iraq in
recent months, much of it stemming from decades-old discord between the
nation's Sunnis and Shiites, the two largest branches of Islam."

With Iraqi social media pegging the unemployment rate at over 18%, this
news is not going over well. It's been pointed out that nearly 200
nurses will have been imported to Iraq this month alone and that the
government of Nouri al-Maliki, in place since 2006, could have long ago
set up scholarships and fast-track programs for Iraqis to become nurses.
We've touched on this topic here many times. It remains one that the
media chooses to ignore.

Interior Ministry called for citizens and drivers of vehicles to inspect their vehicles before driving.The
spokesman of the Baghdad Operations Command, Brigadier General Saad
Maan, revealed, in a press statement, the intention of al-Qaeda to use
sticky bombs as a means of killing and targeting innocent Iraqi people
after the blows received by this terrorist organization in recent
proactive operations (revenge of the martyrs).

That might seem to go without saying -- check your vehicle for a bomb
before getting in it -- but clearly, on the day a "member of the
military intelligence" apparently didn't do so, an announcement needs to
be made.

Public announcements and mass arrests are all Nouri has to offer when it
comes to addressing any crisis (that and calling everyone a
'terrorist'). And those 'tools' are not producing results. Instead,
they are making the situation much worse. NINA notes:The head of the Anbar provincial council, Sabah Karhoot al-Halbusi
confirmed that "the military campaign in Tharthar area, northeast of
Ramadi, has witnessed arbitrary arrests for innocent people".He
told the reporter of the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / "The
crackdown by the security forces in the Tharthar area northeast of
Ramadi resulted in the arrest of / 65 / of innocent people, most of whom
are fishermen."He added that "the Anbar provincial council,
through contacts with the security leaders, was able to release / 50 /
detainees," noting that the number of wanted does not exceed / 15 /
persons.

The provincial council's work does not erase the pain or the arrests or
the humiliation of those 50 innocent people. Nouri's actions are
breeding violence. Add to that, Iraqi Spring MC reports
6 people were arrested by Nouri's forces in al-Tarmia (part of Baghdad
Province) and were later found dumped in the road, their heads chopped
off. The notion that you stop violence with violence isn't working for
Nouri and hasn't for the last seven years.

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 685 violent deaths this month so far. And the month ends this week.
Which means the monthly death toll will be noted by a few press outlets. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports Nouri's government is undercounting and downplaying deaths:

The government has downplayed the number of deaths from
attacks in its official statements, even as violence in Iraq has reached
levels not seen since 2008.

It has also challenged media reports on unrest, saying some were as dangerous as attacks themselves.

That's only a surprise to people who didn't pay attention. AFP and
Prashant Rao did pay attention to the regular undercount the Iraqi
government was providing. That's why AFP now keeps its own death toll.
The fact that the news isn't surprising isn't meant as an insult to
Dunlop. This is news and good for him and AFP for reporting it.

About Me

I'm a black working mother. I love to laugh and between work and raising kids, I need a good laugh. I'm also a community member of The Common Ills. Shout outs to any Common Ills community members stopping by. Big shout out to C.I. for all the help getting this started. I am not married to Thomas Friedman, credit me with better taste, please. This site is a parody.